17864 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 

safety radius and, based on its position 

and the relative motion, is likely to 

enter the safety radius, the vessel’s 

speed and/or direct course may, when 

practical and safe, be changed in a 

manner that also minimizes the effect to 

the planned science objectives. The 

marine mammal activities and 

movements relative to the seismic vessel 

will be closely monitored to ensure that 

the animal does not approach within the 

safety radius. If the animal appears 

likely to enter the safety radius, further 

mitigative actions will be taken, i.e. 

either further course alterations or shut 

down of the airguns. 

Shut-down Procedures - If a marine 

mammal is detected outside the safety 

radius but is likely to enter the safety 

radius, and if the vessel’s course and/or 

speed cannot be changed to avoid 

having the animal enter the safety 

radius, the airguns will be shut down 

before the animal is within the safety 

radius (10 m (33 ft) for pinnipeds (190–

dB isopleth) or 40 m (131 ft) for 

cetaceans (180–dB isopleth)). Likewise, 

if a marine mammal is already within 

the safety radius when first detected, the 

airguns will be shut down immediately. 

Airgun activity will not resume until 

the animal has cleared the safety radius. 

The animal will be considered to have 

cleared the safety radius if it is visually 

observed to have left the safety radius, 

or if it has not been seen within the 

radius for 15 min (small odontocetes 

and pinnipeds) or 30 min (mysticetes 

and large odontocetes, including sperm, 

pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, beaked, and 

bottlenose whales). 

Ramp-up Procedures – A ‘‘ramp-up’’

procedure will be followed when the 

airguns begin operating after a period 

without airgun operations. The two GI 

guns will be added in sequence 5 

minutes apart. During ramp-up 

procedures, the safety radius for the two 

GI guns will be maintained. 

Night Operations – At night, vessel 

lights and/or night vision devices 

(NVDs) could be useful in sighting some 

marine mammals at the surface within 

a short distance from the ship (within 

the safety radii for the two GI guns in 

deep water). Start up of the airguns will 

only occur in situations when the entire 

safety radius is visible with vessel lights 

and NVDs. 

Reporting 

A report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The end of the northeastern 

Indian Ocean cruise is predicted to 

occur between July 16 and August 13, 

2007. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and the 

marine mammals that were detected 

near the operations. The report will be 

submitted to NMFS, providing full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. The 90–day report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, marine mammal 

sightings (dates, times, locations, 

activities, associated seismic survey 

activities), and estimates of the amount 

and nature of potential ‘‘take’’ of marine 

mammals by harassment or in other 

ways. 

Endangered Species Act 

Under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) the NSF has begun 

consultation on this proposed seismic 

survey. NMFS will also consult on the 

issuance of an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this 

activity. Consultation will be concluded 

prior to a determination on the issuance 

of the IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NSF prepared an Environmental 

Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy 

Marine Seismic Survey by the Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography in the 

Northeast Indian Ocean, May July 2007. 

NMFS will either adopt NSF’s EA or 

conduct a separate NEPA analysis, as 

necessary, prior to making a 

determination on the issuance of the 

IHA. 

Preliminary Determinations 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the impact of conducting the 

seismic survey in the northeast Indian 

Ocean may result, at worst, in a 

temporary modification in behavior 

(Level B Harassment) of small numbers 

of 29 species of cetaceans. Further, this 

activity is expected to result in a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks. The provision requiring that 

the activity not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

affected species or stock for subsistence 

uses does not apply for this proposed 

action. 

For reasons stated peviously in this 

document, this determination is 

supported by: (1) the likelihood that, 

given sufficient notice through 

relatively slow ship speed and rampup, 

marine mammals are expected to move 

away from a noise source that is 

annoying prior to its becoming 

potentially injurious; (2) the fact that 

marine mammals would have to be 

closer than 40 m from the vessel to be 

exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) 

believed to have even a minimal chance 

of causing TTS; and (3) the likelihood 

that marine mammal detection ability 

by trained observers is high at that short 

distance from the vessel. As a result, no 

take by injury or death is anticipated 

and the potential for temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment is very 

low and will be avoided through the 

incorporation of the proposed 

mitigation measures. 

While the number of potential 

incidental harassment takes will depend 

on the distribution and abundance of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

survey activity, the number of potential 

harassment takings is estimated to be 

small, less than a few percent of any of 

the estimated population sizes, and has 

been mitigated to the lowest level 

practicable through incorporation of the 

measures mentioned previously in this 

document. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to SIO for conducting a lowenergy seismic survey in the Indian 

Ocean from May - August, 2007, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: April 4, 2007. 

David Cottingham, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6750 Filed 4–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 010207B] 

Small Takes of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; 

Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas off Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application 

and proposed incidental take 

authorization; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from Shell Offshore, Inc. 

(SOI) for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take small 

numbers of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to conducting 

open-water offshore exploratory drilling 

on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil 

lease blocks in the Beaufort Sea off 

Alaska. Under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 17865 

issue an IHA to SOI to incidentally take, 

by Level B harassment, small numbers 

of several species of marine mammals 

between mid-July and November, 2007, 

incidental to conducting this drilling 

program. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than May 10, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

application should be addressed to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225, or by telephoning the 

contact listed here. The mailbox address 

for providing email comments is 

PR1.010207B @noaa.gov. Comments 

sent via e-mail, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 10–

megabyte file size. A copy of the 

application (containing a list of the 

references used in this document) may 

be obtained by writing to this address or 

by telephoning the contact listed here 

and are also available at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#iha. 

Documents cited in this document, 

that are not available through standard 

public library access methods, may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours at this address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–

2289 or Brad Smith, NMFS, Alaska 

Regional Office 907–271–3023. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of marine mammals 

by U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization shall be granted if 

NMFS finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s) and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses and the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ’’...an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. Except 

with respect to certain activities not 

pertinent here, the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: 

any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment]. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–

day time limit for NMFS review of an 

application followed by a 30–day public 

notice and comment period on any 

proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the comment period, NMFS must 

either issue or deny issuance of the 

authorization. 

Summary of Request 

Open Water Exploration Drilling 

SOI is planning to utilize two drilling 

units during the 2007 open water season 

in order to drill priority exploration 

targets on their U.S. Minerals 

Management Services (MMS) OCS 

leases in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The 

highest priority exploratory targets for 

2007 are located offshore of Pt. 

Thomson and Flaxman Island, on the 

leaseholds referred to as Sivulliq and 

Olympia, in Camden Bay. However, 

given the locations of open water 

conditions during 2007 and permit/ 

authorization stipulations, SOI may 

elect to re-prioritize well locations on 

one, or more of their OCS leases (see 

Figure 1 in SOI’s IHA application). Reprioritizing of drilling prospects due to 

ice may cause drilling to occur at other 

Beaufort Sea OCS leases held by SOI, 

but only those that have been precleared to the satisfaction of MMS. It is 

anticipated that the drilling vessels will 

each drill up to two wells during the 

open water season of 2007. 

The drilling units proposed for SOI’s 

2007 OCS drilling program include the 

semi-submersible drill ship, the Kulluk, 

and a floating drill ship, the Frontier 

Discoverer (Discoverer). Both the Kulluk 

and Discoverer will be mobilized into 

the Beaufort Sea as soon as ice 

conditions permit. Each will be 

accompanied by up to two Arctic-class, 

foreign-flagged, ice management vessels 

which will also serve duty as anchor 

tenders, and other drill ship support 

tasks. These ice management vessels 

are: the M/V Jim Kilabuk, the M/V 

Vladimir Ignatjuk, the M/V Kapitan 

Dranitsyn, the M/V Fennica-Nordica,; 

and the M/V Tor Viking. 

Additional support vessels, such as 

the M/V Peregrine and aircraft will also 

be used during the drilling season, 

assisting with crew change support and 

provision re-supply. Oil spill response 

vessels (OSRV) will accompany the drill 

ships, at all times while drilling occurs 

through prospective hydrocarbonbearing zones. Projected dates for 

arrivals of OSRVs on location in the 

Beaufort Sea will be known around the 

end of April/May 2007. An ice-class, 

purpose built OSRV is being 

constructed for SOI and will be 

deployed in the Beaufort Sea for this 

drilling program. Potential OSRV 

support includes the Arctic Endeavor 

barge and associated tug; and an OSR 

tanker that will be staged in proximity 

to both drilling units. Specifications for 

the Kulluk, Discoverer and prospective 

ice management vessels are included in 

SOI’s IHA application. 

The Kulluk is currently moored in 

McKinley Bay, Yukon Territory, 

Canada. Ice management support 

(Ignatjuk and Fennica-Nordica) for the 

Kulluk are projected to enter the 

Beaufort Sea during mid-late June 2007 

traveling west to east toward McKinley 

Bay. The Kulluk is projected to be towed 

into the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 

July 2007 by one of the arctic class ice 

management vessels, which travel 

through the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 

before arriving in McKinley Bay for 

mobilization. The Discoverer is 

currently docked in Singapore and will 

travel to Kotzebue for re-supply before 

mobilizing into the Beaufort Sea, 

accompanied by ice management 

vessels. The Dranitsyn will provide ice 

management support for the Discoverer. 

Both ships are expected to depart 

Kotzebue in early July before entering 

the Beaufort Sea. 

These vessels will traverse the 

Alaskan Beaufort from west to east and 

are projected to begin the traverse before 

July 1, 2007. These vessels should free 

the Kulluk and ready it for mobilization 

to the Alaskan Beaufort Sea by late July 

or early August 2007. The Tor Viking is 

projected to enter the Beaufort Sea 

during mid-late June 2007 and arrive on 

location of the Sivulliq prospect in late 

June. The Kilabuk will provide support 

and supply to the Kulluk. Toward the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
17866 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 

end of July, an additional ice 

management vessel (the Dranitsyn) will 

escort the Discoverer from the Bering 

Sea northward through the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas to drilling prospects 

where ice conditions allow safe 

operating access. At the conclusion of 

open water operations around the end of 

October 2007, SOI expects to demobilize 

both the Kulluk and the Discoverer 

before the end of November 2007. The 

Kulluk will be accompanied by two ice 

management vessels back to the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea (McKinley Bay), 

while two ice management vessels will 

accompany the Discoverer west through 

the Beaufort Sea and south through the 

Chukchi Sea. 

Pre-Feasibility Geotechnical Borehole 

Drilling 

To obtain geotechnical data for prefeasibility analyses of shallow sub-sea 

sediments, SOI plans to drill as many as 

eight boreholes, each up to 400 ft (122 

m) in depth. SOI notes that these 

boreholes will be completed at depths 

more than one mile (1.6 km) above any 

of the prospective subsurface 

hydrocarbon- bearing zones in the 

Sivulliq prospect (see Figure 1 in SOI’s 

application). Three potential 

development locations will be 

investigated at Sivulliq, deeper 

locations along a prospective pipeline 

access corridor will also be investigated. 

This operation is expected to take 

approximately one week per borehole. 

The geotechnical survey component 

of the program will be conducted by a 

vessel typically over 200 ft (61 m) in 

length, with a moon-pool and drilling 

rig approximately at mid-ships, A-frame 

at the stern, helideck above the bow/ 

bridge and accommodations for about 

40 technical staff and crew. A typical 

geotechnical coring vessel is illustrated 

in Attachment A of SOI’s MMPA 

application. 

The geotechnical drilling is expected 

to begin during July 2007. Including 

weather, ice conditions and logistics/ 

resupply it is anticipated that 

geotechnical borings may require up to 

8 weeks within a 12–week time-frame 

finished by the end of October 2007. 

The proposed geotechnical locations 

include the Sivulliq prospect and the Pt. 

Thomson to Sivulliq prospective 

pipeline access corridor. 

Marine Mammals 

A total of three cetacean species 

(bowhead, gray, and beluga whales), 

three species of pinnipeds (ringed, 

spotted, and bearded seal), and one 

marine carnivore (polar bear) are known 

to occur in or near the proposed drilling 

areas in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. Other 

extralimital species that occasionally 

occur in very small numbers in this 

portion of the U.S. Beaufort Sea include 

the harbor porpoise and killer whale. 

However, because of their rarity in this 

area, they are not expected to be 

exposed to, or affected by, any activities 

associated with the drilling, and are not 

discussed further. The polar bear is 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and is 

not discussed further in this document. 

The species and numbers of marine 

mammals likely to be found within this 

portion of the Beaufort Sea are listed in 

Table 4–1 in SOI’s IHA application. 

A description of the biology and 

distribution of the marine mammal 

species under NMFS’ jurisdiction can be 

found in SOI’s IHA application, MMS’

2006 PEA for Arctic seismic activities, 

the NMFS/MMS Draft Programmatic EIS 

for Arctic Seismic in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi seas and several other 

documents (e.g., MMS Final EA for 

Lease Sale 202, Army Corps of 

Engineers for the Northstar Project, 

1999). Information on these species can 

be found also in the NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports. The 2006 Alaska 

Stock Assessment Report is available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/ 

region.htm Please refer to these 

documents for information on these 

potentially affected marine mammal 

species. 

Potential Effects of Seismic Surveys on 

Marine Mammals 

Disturbance by drilling sounds is the 

principal means of taking by this 

activity. Drilling vessels, support vessels 

including ice management vessels, and 

aircraft may provide a potential second 

source of noise. The physical presence 

of vessels and aircraft could also lead to 

non-acoustic effects on marine 

mammals involving visual or other cues. 

As outlined in previous NMFS 

documents, the effects of noise on 

marine mammals are highly variable, 

and can be categorized as follows (based 

on Richardson et al., 1995): 

(1) The noise may be too weak to be 

heard at the location of the animal (i.e., 

lower than the prevailing ambient noise 

level, the hearing threshold of the 

animal at relevant frequencies, or both); 

(2) The noise may be audible but not 

strong enough to elicit any overt 

behavioral response; 

(3) The noise may elicit reactions of 

variable conspicuousness and variable 

relevance to the well being of the 

marine mammal; these can range from 

temporary alert responses to active 

avoidance reactions such as vacating an 

area at least until the noise event ceases; 

(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine 

mammal may exhibit diminishing 

responsiveness (habituation), or 

disturbance effects may persist; the 

latter is most likely with sounds that are 

highly variable in characteristics, 

infrequent and unpredictable in 

occurrence, and associated with 

situations that a marine mammal 

perceives as a threat; 

(5) Any anthropogenic noise that is 

strong enough to be heard has the 

potential to reduce (mask) the ability of 

a marine mammal to hear natural 

sounds at similar frequencies, including 

calls from conspecifics, and underwater 

environmental sounds such as surf 

noise; 

(6) If mammals remain in an area 

because it is important for feeding, 

breeding or some other biologically 

important purpose even though there is 

chronic exposure to noise, it is possible 

that there could be noise-induced 

physiological stress; this might in turn 

have negative effects on the well-being 

or reproduction of the animals involved; 

and 

(7) Very strong sounds have the 

potential to cause temporary or 

permanent reduction in hearing 

sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and 

presumably marine mammals, received 

sound levels must far exceed the 

animal’s hearing threshold for there to 

be any temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

in its hearing ability. For transient 

sounds, the sound level necessary to 

cause TTS is inversely related to the 

duration of the sound. Received sound 

levels must be even higher for there to 

be risk of permanent hearing 

impairment. In addition, intense 

acoustic or explosive events may cause 

trauma to tissues associated with organs 

vital for hearing, sound production, 

respiration and other functions. This 

trauma may include minor to severe 

hemorrhage. 

The only anticipated impacts to 

marine mammals associated with 

drilling activities are from propagation 

of sounds from the drilling units and 

associated support vessels and aircraft. 

SOI and NMFS believe that any impacts 

on the whale and seal populations of the 

Beaufort Sea activity area are likely to 

be short term and transitory arising from 

the temporary displacement of 

individuals or small groups from 

locations they may occupy at the times 

they are exposed to intermittent drilling 

sounds at the 120–190 db received 

levels. As noted in SOI’s IHA 

application, it is highly unlikely that 

animals will be exposed to sounds of 

such intensity and duration as to 

physically damage their auditory 

mechanisms. In the case of bowhead 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 17867 

whales that displacement might well 

take the form of a deflection of the swim 

paths of migrating bowheads away from 

(seaward of) received noise levels 

greater than 160 db (Richardson et al., 

1999). This study and other studies 

conducted to test the hypothesis of the 

deflection response of bowheads have 

determined that bowheads return to the 

swim paths they were following at 

relatively short distances after their 

exposure to the received sounds (SOI, 

2006). To date, no evidence has been 

obtained that bowheads so exposed 

have incurred injury to their auditory 

mechanisms. Additionally, while there 

is no conclusive evidence that exposure 

to sounds exceeding 160 db have 

displaced bowheads from feeding 

activity (Richardson and Thomson, 

2002), there is some information that 

intermittent sounds (e.g., oil drilling 

and vessel propulsion sounds) may 

cause a deflection in the migratory path 

of whales (Malme et al., 1983, 1984), but 

possibly not when the acoustic source is 

not in the direct migratory path (Tyack 

and Clark, 1998). 

There is no evidence that seals are 

more than temporarily displaced from 

ensonified zones and no evidence that 

seals have experienced physical damage 

to their auditory mechanisms even 

within ensonified zones. 

Distance Effects of Open Water Drilling 

on Marine Mammals 

The only type of incidental taking 

requested in SOI’s IHA application is 

that of takes by noise harassment. The 

principal sources of project-created 

noise will be those resulting from the 

Kulluk and Discoverer and their support 

vessels, especially ice management 

vessels. Although the bulk of the 

activity will be centered in the area of 

drilling, potential exposures, or impacts 

to marine mammals also will occur as 

the drilling vessels, and ice management 

vessels mobilize through the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas. 

Noise propagation studies were 

performed on the Kulluk (Hall et al., 

1994) in the Kuvlum prospect drill sites, 

approximately 6 mi (9.6 km) east of 

SOI’s Sivulliq prospect that SOI is 

proposing to drill during 2007. Acoustic 

recording devices were established at 

10–m (33–ft) and 20–m (65.6–ft) depths 

below water surface at varying distances 

from the Kulluk and decibel (dB) levels 

were recorded during drilling 

operations. There were large differences 

between sound propagation between the 

different water depths. At 10 m (33 ft) 

water depth, the 120–db threshold had 

a 0.7–km (0.4–mi) radius around the 

Kulluk, and the 105–db threshold had 

an 8.5–km (5.3–mi) radius. At a depth 

of 20 m (66 ft) below water surface, the 

120–db threshold had a radius of 8.5 km 

(5.3 mi) and the 105–db threshold had 

a radius of 100 km (62.1 mi). There is 

no definitive explanation for the large 

differences in propagation at the 

different levels. Possible explanations 

include the presence of an acoustic 

layer due to melting ice during the 

sound studies and/or sound being 

channeled into the lower depths due to 

the seafloor topography (SOI, 2006). 

However, new sound propagation 

studies will be performed on the Kulluk, 

Discoverer, ice management, and 

support vessels once these vessels are at 

their locations for drilling in the 

Beaufort Sea. 

Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected 

to Be Taken 

Using the marine mammal density 

estimates presented in Table 6–1 (see 

IHA application), SOI provided 

estimates of the numbers of potential 

marine mammal sound exposures in 

Table 6–2. Average expected 

abundances for bowhead whales were 

derived from the Miller et al. (2002) 

feeding study in which total proportion 

of the population ‘‘moving through’’

was estimated for the depth isopleths in 

which drilling operations are expected 

to occur. These estimates are based on 

the 160 dB re 1 microPa (rms) criteria 

for most cetaceans, because this range is 

assumed to be the sound source level at 

which marine mammals may change 

their behavior sufficiently to be 

considered ‘‘taken by harassment.’’ The 

proportion of bowhead whales that 

might occur within the area potentially 

ensonified by the 160 dB criterion was 

estimated from Richardson and 

Thomson (2002) in which average 

migrating distribution across the 0–20, 

20–40, 40–200 and >200 m (65.6 ft, 131 

ft, 656 ft respectively) isopleths are 

estimated to be 25, 27, 37, and 10 

percent of the population respectively. 

As the majority of the operations related 

to the 2007 drilling program will occur 

within the 20–40 m (65.6–131 ft) depth 

isopleth, SOI estimates that the average 

expected number of bowheads in this 

area would be 3,480 individuals. As a 

conservative estimate of potential 

bowheads present was twice that 

number, or a maximum estimate of 

6,960 individual bowheads. 

Hall et al. (1994) utilized 

measurements from sonobuoys 

deployed at distances of 20, 27, and 34 

km (65.6, 88.6, 111.5 ft) from active 

drilling operations to estimate that 

combined activities including drilling, 

geotechnical boring, vessel transit, and 

ice management activities may reach 

160 dB at a distance of 200 m (656 ft) 

from the source. Although no single 

source produced measured sound in 

excess of 160 dB, this 200–m (656–ft) 

distance was selected by SOI as a 

conservative estimate of potential sound 

propagation from drilling related 

sources. Although planned operating 

procedures will limit the number of 

sound sources that will be operating 

during any portion of the bowhead 

migration, the additional conservative 

assumption is made that 10 sources 

could simultaneously operate at a level 

to cumulatively produce 160 dB at 200 

m (656 ft). Therefore, the total 160 dB 

ensonified area would be 2 km (1.2 mi), 

or approximately 7 percent of the 29–

km (18–mi) wide 20–40 m (65.6–131 ft) 

isopleth. Seven percent of the bowhead 

whales present in the 20–40 m (65.6–

131 ft) isopleth would be 244 animals at 

the average density estimate and 488 

animals at the maximum density 

estimate. 

Based on the findings by Malme et al. 

(1983, 1984) for intermittent lowfrequency noise exposures on a lowfrequency hearing specialist (gray 

whales), NMFS requested SOI prepare 

an estimation of sound exposures to the 

level of 120 dB rms. Although the 

biological significance of this 120–dB 

sound level is subject to debate (as 

indicated by later research (Tyack and 

Clark, 1998), if the LF source was 

removed from the direct migratory path, 

gray whales ignored the signal), several 

related studies report (discussed next) 

that migrating bowhead whales react to 

and, possibly avoid, sound levels in 

excess of 120 dB. As such, estimation of 

exposures to 120 dB levels is included 

in this discussion. 

SOI points out that one difficulty with 

NMFS’ 120–dB criterion for intermittent 

noise is an inconsistency between field 

observations of migrating bowhead 

avoidance behavior associated with 

sound measurements and sound 

measurements and modeling that is 

independent of whale observations. The 

majority of observations (in the Beaufort 

Sea) upon which the 120–dB criterion 

are based are derived from aerial 

monitoring programs around both 

drilling and seismic sources. Closest 

observed proximity of bowhead whales 

to operating drilling or icebreaking 

operations vary between 3 km (1.86 mi) 

(Hall et al., 1994), 11 km (6.8 mi) (LGL 

& Greeneridge, 1987) and 19 km (11.8 

mi) (Ljungblad et al.,1987). SOI notes 

that there is some consistency, however, 

in estimation of the distance of 

deflection from drilling/ice management 

activities being in the range of 10–20 km 

(6.2–12.4 mi) from the source. Sound 

measurements acquired in the proximity 

of observed whales tend to be 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
17868 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 

approximately 120 dB leading to the 

conclusion that migrating bowheads 

tend to avoid sound levels in excess of 

120 dB (Richardson et al., 1995). Similar 

conclusions have been drawn from 

observations around operating seismic 

vessels (LGL, 2005). 

Projection of sound propagation from 

measurements of sound around drilling 

operations and seismic operations and 

modeled sound propagation (Hall et al., 

1994) yielded estimations of the 120–dB 

isopleth well beyond the 20 km (12.4 

mi) distance. For example, Hall et al. 

(1994) estimated the 120–dB isopleth for 

combined drilling/ice management 

operations to be in excess of 100 km (62 

mi) from the source(s). While 

subsistence hunters report changes in 

migrating bowhead whale behavior at 

distance as far as 35 mi (56 km) from 

operating seismic vessels, extrapolation 

of avoidance to greater distances is not 

generally reported. 

For the purpose of estimation of 

relevant exposures for bowhead whales, 

a reasonably conservative distance of 30 

km (18.6 mi) zone of potential exposure 

around drilling operations would 

produce exposures within the 0–20, 20–

40, and 40–200 m (65.6 ft, 131 ft, 656 

ft respectively) depth zones. As a result, 

it is possible that exposures to sound 

levels in excess of 120 dB could be 

experienced by as much as 65 percent 

of the population (8,378 individuals). 

For all other species, the average 

expected abundance was estimated by 

multiplying the reported densities 

(Table 6–1 in the IHA application) for 

each species times a potential 

operational area of 840 km2 (operational 

is the area in which primary drilling 

activities will occur, i.e. 29–km (18–mi) 

width of the 20–m - 40–m (65.6–ft - 

131–ft) depth isopleth squared). 

Maximum expected abundances for all 

species were estimated by multiplying 

average expected abundance times two. 

Average and expected exposures were 

then calculated by multiplying the 

abundance times the expected portion 

of the operational area expected to be 

ensonified greater than 160 dB (i.e. 

0.069). 

Ringed seals would be the most 

prevalent marine mammal species 

encountered at each of the two proposed 

drilling areas. Pinnipeds are not likely 

to react to sounds unless they are ≤170 

dB re 1 microPa (rms), and Moulton and 

Lawson (2002) indicated that most 

pinnipeds exposed to 170 dB do not 

visibly react. Under this IHA, SOI has 

requested a take authorization for all 

pinnipeds using the maximum density 

between 170 and 179 dB instead of the 

160 dB threshold. SOI’s decision to use 

the lower estimated number is based on 

the theory that surveys for pinnipeds 

within the Beaufort Sea, and elsewhere, 

are based on on-ice counts which will 

overestimate the number of potential 

exposures (i.e., only a portion of the 

animals are in the water, and therefore, 

could be exposed). Spotted and bearded 

seals may be encountered in much small 

numbers than ringed seals, but also have 

the potential for some exposure. 

Potential Impact of the Activity on the 

Species or Stock 

SOI states that the only anticipated 

impacts to marine mammals associated 

with drilling activities would be 

behavioral reactions to noise 

propagation from the drilling units and 

associated support vessels. NMFS notes 

however, that in addition to these 

sources of anthropogenic sounds, 

additional disturbance to marine 

mammals may result from aircraft 

overflights and the resulting visual 

disturbance by the drilling vessels 

themselves. SOI and NMFS believe, 

however, that the impacts would be 

temporary and result in only short term 

displacement of seals and whales from 

within ensonified zones produced by 

such noise sources. Any impacts on the 

whale and seal populations of the 

Beaufort Sea activity area are likely to 

be short term and transitory arising from 

the temporary displacement of 

individuals or small groups from 

locations they may occupy at the times 

they are exposed to drilling sounds at 

the 160–190 db (or lower) received 

levels. As noted, it is highly unlikely 

that animals will be exposed to sounds 

of such intensity and duration as to 

physically damage their auditory 

mechanisms. In the case of bowhead 

whales that displacement might well 

take the form of a deflection of the swim 

paths of migrating bowheads away from 

(seaward of) received noise levels 

greater than 160 db (Richardson et al., 

1999). Studies conducted to test the 

hypothesis of the deflection response of 

bowheads have determined that 

bowheads return to the swim paths they 

were following at relatively short 

distances after their exposure to the 

received sounds (SOI, 2006). There is no 

evidence that bowheads so exposed 

have incurred injury to their auditory 

mechanisms. Additionally, there is no 

conclusive evidence that exposure to 

sounds exceeding 160 db have 

displaced bowheads from feeding 

activity (Richardson and Thomson, 

2002). Finally, there is no indication 

that seals are more than temporarily 

displaced from ensonified zones and no 

evidence that seals have experienced 

physical damage to their auditory 

mechanisms even within ensonified 

zones. 

Potential Effects of Drilling Sounds and 

Related Activities on Subsistence Needs 

SOI notes that there could be an 

adverse impact on the Inupiat bowhead 

subsistence hunt if the whales were 

deflected seaward (further from shore) 

in the traditional hunting areas north of 

Pt. Thomson in Camden Bay. The 

impact would be that whaling crews 

would necessarily be forced to travel 

greater distances to intercept westward 

migrating whales thereby creating a 

safety hazard for whaling crews and/or 

limiting chances of successfully striking 

and landing bowheads. This potential 

impact is proposed to be mitigated by 

the application of mitigation procedures 

described later in this document and 

implemented by a Conflict Avoidance 

Agreement (CAA) between the SOI, the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC) and the whaling captains’

associations of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut and 

Barrow. SOI believes that the proposed 

mitigation measures will minimize 

adverse effects on whales and whalers. 

(see Mitigation later in this document). 

As a result, there should not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the marine mammal 

species, particularly bowhead whales, 

for subsistence uses. 

Potential Impact On Habitat 

SOI states that the proposed drilling 

and related activities will not result in 

any permanent impact on habitats used 

by marine mammals, or to their prey 

sources. Any effects would be 

temporary and of short duration at any 

one location. The effects of the planned 

drilling activities are expected to be 

negligible. It is estimated that only a 

small portion of the animals utilizing 

the areas of the proposed activities 

would be temporarily displaced from 

that habitat. During the period of 

drilling activities (late-July or earlyAugust through October 2007), most 

marine mammals would be dispersed 

throughout the Beaufort Sea area. The 

peak of the bowhead whale migration 

through the Beaufort Sea typically 

occurs in October, and efforts to reduce 

potential impacts during this time will 

be discussed with the affected whaling 

communities. Starting in late- August, 

bowheads may travel in proximity to the 

drilling activity and some might be 

displaced seaward by the planned 

activities. The numbers of cetaceans and 

pinnipeds subject to displacement are 

small in relation to abundance estimates 

for the affected mammal stocks. 

In addition, SOI states that feeding 

does not appear to be an important 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 17869 

activity by bowheads migrating through 

the eastern and central part of the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea in most years. In 

the absence of important feeding areas, 

the potential diversion of a small 

number of bowheads is not expected to 

have any significant or long-term 

consequences for individual bowheads 

or their population. Bowheads, gray, or 

beluga whales are not predicted to be 

excluded from any significant habitat. 

The proposed activities are not 

expected to have any habitat-related 

effects that would produce long-term 

affects to marine mammals or their 

habitat due to the limited extent of the 

acquisition areas and timing of the 

activities. 

Proposed Mitigation and Monitoring 

Measures 

SOI has proposed implementing a 

marine mammal mitigation and 

monitoring program (MMMMP) that 

will consist of monitoring and 

mitigation during the exploratory 

drilling activities. In conjunction with 

monitoring during SOI’s seismic and 

shallow-hazard surveys (subject to an 

upcoming notice and review), 

monitoring will provide information on 

the numbers of marine mammals 

potentially affected by these activities 

and permit real time mitigation to 

prevent injury of marine mammals by 

industrial sounds or activities. These 

goals will be accomplished by 

conducting vessel- , aerial-, and 

acoustic-monitoring programs to 

characterize the sounds produced by the 

drilling and to document the potential 

reactions of marine mammals in the area 

to those sounds and activities. Acoustic 

modeling will be used to predict the 

sound levels produced by the shallow 

hazards and drilling equipment in the 

U.S. Beaufort Sea. For the drilling 

program, acoustic measurements will 

also be made to establish zones of 

influence (ZOIs) around the activities 

that will be monitored by observers. 

Aerial monitoring and reconnaissance of 

marine mammals and recordings of 

ambient sound levels, vocalizations of 

marine mammals, and received levels 

should they be detectable using bottomfounded acoustic recorders along the 

Beaufort Sea coast will be used to 

interpret the reactions of marine 

mammals exposed to the activities. The 

components of SOI’s monitoring 

program is briefly described next. 

Additional information can be found in 

SOI’s application. 

Underwater Acoustics Program 

Sounds produced during the drilling 

operation and by the shallow hazards 

equipment and other support vessels 

will be measured in the field during 

typical operations. These measurements 

will be used to establish disturbance 

radii for marine mammal groups within 

the project area. The objectives of SOI’s 

planned work are: (1) to measure the 

distances from the various sound 

sources to broadband received levels of 

170, 160, and 120 dB rms re 1 microPa 

(sounds are not expected to reach 180 

dB), and (2) to measure the radiated 

vessel sounds vs. distance for the source 

and support vessels. The measurements 

will be made at the beginning of the 

specific activity (i.e., shallow hazards 

survey activity and drilling activity) and 

all safety and disturbance radii will be 

reported within 72 hours of completing 

the measurements. For the drilling 

operation, a subsequent mid-season 

assessment will be conducted to 

measure sound propagation from 

combined drilling operations during 

‘‘normal’’ operations. For drilling 

activities, the primary radii of concern 

will be the 160–dB disturbance radii 

(although measurements will be made to 

the 180–dB isopleth). In addition to 

reporting the radii of specific regulatory 

concern, distances to other sound 

isopleths down to 120 dB (if 

measurable) will be reported in 

increments of 10 dB. The distance at 

which received sound levels become ≤ 

120 dB for continuous sound (which 

occurs during drilling activities as 

opposed to impulsive sound which 

occurs during seismic activities) is 

sometimes considered to be a zone of 

potential disturbance for some cetacean 

species by NMFS. SOI plans to use 

vessel-based marine mammal observers 

(MMOs) to monitor the 160–dB 

disturbance radii around the seismic 

sound sources and, if necessary, to 

implement mitigation measures for the 

190- and 180–dB safety radii. The 

MMOs will also monitor the 120–dB 

zone around the drilling ships. An aerial 

survey program will be implemented to 

monitor the 120–dB zone around the 

drilling activities in the Beaufort Sea in 

2007. These two monitoring and 

mitigation programs are discussed next. 

SOI plans to use a qualified acoustical 

contractor to measure the sound 

propagation of the vessel-based drilling 

rigs during periods of drilling activity, 

and the drill ships and support vessels 

while they are underway at the start of 

the field season. Noise from ships with 

ice-breaking capabilities will be 

measured during periods of ice-breaking 

activity. These measurements will be 

used to determine the sound levels 

produced by various equipment and to 

establish any safety and disturbance 

radii if necessary. Bottom-founded 

hydrophones similar to those used in 

2006 for measurements of vessel-based 

seismic sound propagation will likely be 

used to determine the levels of sound 

propagation from the drill rigs and 

associated vessels. An initial sound 

source analysis will be supplied to 

NMFS and the drilling operators within 

72 hours of completion of the 

measurements, if possible. A detailed 

report on the methodology and results 

of these tests will be provided to NMFS 

as part of the 90 day report following 

completion of the drilling program. 

Acoustic Monitoring Program 

SOI plans to develop an acoustic 

component of the MMMMP to further 

understand, define, and document 

sound characteristics and propagation 

within the broader Beaufort Sea and 

potential deflections of bowhead whales 

from anticipated migratory pathways in 

response to vessel-based drilling 

activities. Of particular interest for this 

investigatory component is the east-west 

extent of deflection (i.e., how far east of 

a sound source do bowheads begin to 

deflect and how far to the west beyond 

the sound source does deflection 

persist). Of additional interest is the 

extent of offshore deflection that occurs. 

Currently, insufficient information is 

available on how vessel-based drilling 

noise similar to that proposed by SOI in 

the Beaufort Sea in 2007 may impact 

migrating bowhead whales. 

Determining the potential effects of 

drilling noise on migration bowhead 

whales will be complicated by the 

presence of ice-breaking and other 

support vessels that may contribute 

significantly to underwater sound 

levels. Miles et al. (1987) reported 

higher sound pressure levels (SPLs) 

from ice-breakers underway in open 

water than from vessel-based drilling 

activity. SPLs from dredging activity, a 

working tug, and an icebreaker pushing 

ice were also greater than those 

produced by vessel-based drilling 

activity. However, sounds produced 

during drilling activity are relatively 

continuous while ice management 

vessel sounds are considered to be 

intermittent, and there is some concern 

that continuous and intermittent sounds 

may result in behavioral reactions (at 

least in mysticete whales) at a greater 

distance than impulse sound (i.e., 

seismic) of the same intensity. 

Acoustic localization methods 

provide a possible alternative to aerial 

surveys for addressing these questions. 

As compared with aerial surveys, 

acoustic methods have the advantage of 

providing a vastly larger number of 

whale detections, and can operate day 

or night, independent of visibility, and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
17870 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 

to some degree independent of ice 

conditions and sea state-all of which 

prevent or impair aerial surveys. 

However, acoustic methods depend on 

the animals to call, and to some extent 

assume that calling rate is unaffected by 

exposure to industrial noise. Bowheads 

do call frequently in the fall, but there 

is some evidence that their calling rate 

may be reduced upon exposure to 

industrial sounds, complicating 

interpretation. Also, acoustic methods 

require development and deployment of 

instruments that are stationary 

(preferably mounted on the bottom) to 

record and localize the whale calls. 

According to SOI, acoustic methods 

would likely be more effective for 

studying impacts related to a stationary 

sound source, such as a drilling rig that 

is operating within a relatively localized 

area, than for a moving sound source 

such as that produced by a seismic 

source vessel. 

In addition, SOI plans to conduct a 

study in 2007 similar to the one 

conducted for seismic in 2006 in the 

Chukchi Sea to determine the effect of 

drilling noise and noise from support 

vessels and seismic activities on 

migrating bowhead whales. An acoustic 

‘‘net’’ array was used during the 2006 

field season in the Chukchi Sea. It was 

designed to (1) collect information on 

the occurrence and distribution of 

beluga whales that may be available to 

subsistence hunters near villages 

located on the Chukchi Sea coast, and 

(2) measure the ambient noise levels 

near these villages and record received 

levels of sounds from seismic survey 

activities should they be detectable. The 

basic components of this effort 

consisted of bottom-founded equipment 

for long-duration passive acoustic 

recording. A suite of autonomous 

seafloor recorders was deployed in a 

‘‘net’’ array extending from nearshore to 

approximately 50 miles offshore. During 

the 2007 drilling program, SOI proposes 

to deploy bottom-founded acoustic 

recorders around SOI’s drilling 

activities that have the ability of 

recording calling whales. Figure 1 in 

SOI’s IHA application shows potential 

locations of the bottom-founded 

recorders and an array layout in relation 

to the drilling site. The actual locations 

of the bottom-founded recorders will 

depend on specifications of recording 

equipment chosen for the project, and 

on the acoustical characteristics of the 

environment, which are yet to be 

determined. The results of these data 

will be used to determine the extent of 

deflection of migrating bowhead whales 

from the sound sources produced by the 

vessel-based drill rig. 

Aerial Survey Monitoring Program 

SOI proposes to conduct an aerial 

survey program in support of its dual 

seismic exploration and drilling 

programs in the Beaufort Sea during 

summer and fall of 2007. The objectives 

of the aerial survey will be to: (1) advise 

operating vessels as to the presence of 

marine mammals in the general area of 

operations; (2) monitor the area east of 

the seismic activity to ensure that large 

numbers of bowhead mothers and 

calves do not enter the area where they 

would be ensonified by seismic sounds 

≥120 dB re 1microPa, which might 

displace them from feeding areas or 

their preferred migratory routes, (3) 

collect and report data on the 

distribution, numbers, movement and 

behavior of marine mammals near the 

seismic and drilling operations with 

special emphasis on migrating bowhead 

whales; (4) support regulatory reporting 

and Inupiat communications related to 

the estimation of impacts of seismic and 

drilling operations on marine mammals; 

(5) monitor the accessibility of bowhead 

whales to Inupiat hunters; and, (6) 

document how far west of seismic and 

drilling activities bowhead whales 

travel before they return to their normal 

migration paths, and if possible, to 

document how far east of seismic and 

drilling operations the deflection begins. 

For additional information on SOI’s 

aerial survey design and other 

information, please refer to SOI’s IHA 

application. 

Vessel-based Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Program 

The vessel-based operations will be 

the core of SOI’s MMMMP. The 

MMMMP will be designed to ensure 

that disturbance to marine mammals 

and subsistence hunts is minimized, 

that effects on marine mammals are 

documented, and to collect baseline 

data on the occurrence and distribution 

of marine mammals in the study area. 

Those objectives will be achieved, in 

part, through the vessel-based 

monitoring and mitigation program. 

The MMMMP will be implemented by 

a team of experienced MMOs, including 

both biologists and Inupiat personnel, 

approved in advance by NMFS. The 

MMOs will be stationed aboard the 

drilling vessels and associated support 

vessels throughout the drilling period. 

The duties of the MMOs will include 

watching for and identifying marine 

mammals; recording their numbers, 

distances, and reactions to the drilling 

operations; initiating mitigation 

measures when appropriate; and 

reporting the results. Reporting of the 

results of the vessel-based monitoring 

program will include the estimation of 

the number of ‘‘takes.’’

Drilling activities are expected to 

occur during August and October 2007. 

The dates and operating areas will 

depend upon ice and weather 

conditions, along with SOI’s 

arrangements with agencies and 

stakeholders. Vessel-based monitoring 

for marine mammals will be performed 

throughout the period of drilling 

operations. The vessel-based work will 

provide: (1) the basis for real-time 

mitigation, (2) information needed to 

estimate the ‘‘take’’ of marine mammals 

by harassment, which must be reported 

to NMFS and USFWS, (3) data on the 

occurrence, distribution, and activities 

of marine mammals in the areas where 

the drilling program is conducted, (4) 

information to compare the distances, 

distributions, behavior, and movements 

of marine mammals relative to the 

source vessels at times with and without 

drilling or ice-management activity, (5) 

a communication channel to Inupiat 

whalers and the Whaling Coordination 

Center, and (6) employment and 

capacity building for local residents, 

with one objective being to develop a 

larger pool of experienced Inupiat 

MMOs. 

All MMOs will be provided training 

through a program approved by NMFS, 

as described later. At least one observer 

on each vessel will be an Inupiat who 

will have the additional responsibility 

of communicating with the Inupiat 

community and (during the whaling 

season) directly with Inupiat whalers. 

Details of the vessel-based marine 

mammal monitoring program are 

described in the IHA application. 

Mitigation Measures During Drilling 

Activities 

SOI’s proposed offshore drilling 

program incorporates both design 

features and operational procedures for 

minimizing potential impacts on marine 

mammals and on subsistence hunts. The 

design features and operational 

procedures are described in the IHA 

application and are summarized below. 

Survey design features to reduce 

impacts include: (1) timing and locating 

some drilling support activities to avoid 

interference with the annual fall 

bowhead whale hunts from Kaktovik, 

Nuiqsut (Cross Island), and Barrow; (2) 

conducting pre-season modeling and 

early season field assessments to 

establish the appropriate 180 dB and 

190 dB safety zones (if necessary), and 

the 160 and 120 dB behavior radii; and 

(3) vessel-based (and aerial) monitoring 

to implement appropriate mitigation 

(and to assess the effects of project 

activities on marine mammals). 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 17871 

Under current NMFS guidance ‘‘safety 

radii’’ for marine mammals around 

acoustic sources are customarily defined 

as the distances within which received 

pulse levels are ≥180 dB re 1 microPa 

(rms) for cetaceans and ≥190 dB re 1 

microPa (rms) for pinnipeds. These 

safety criteria are based on an 

assumption that lower received levels 

will not injure these animals or impair 

their hearing abilities, but that higher 

received levels might have a potential 

for such effects. Mitigation measures as 

discussed below would be implemented 

if marine mammals are observed within 

or about to enter these safety radii. 

However, Greene (1987) reported SPLs 

ranging from 130–136 dB (rms) at 0.2 

km (656 ft) from the Kulluk during 

drilling activities (drilling, tripping, and 

cleaning) in the Arctic. Higher received 

levels up to 148 dB (rms) were recorded 

for supply vessels that were underway 

and for icebreaking activities. As a 

result, SOI believes that the exploratory 

drilling and the activities of the support 

vessels are not likely to produce sound 

levels sufficient to cause temporary 

hearing loss or permanent hearing 

damage to any marine mammals. 

Consequently, standard mitigation as 

described later in this document for 

seismic activities including shut down 

of any drilling activity should not be 

necessary (unless sound monitoring 

tests described elsewhere in this 

document indicate SPLs at or greater 

than 180 dB). If testing indicates SPLs 

will reach or exceed 180 dB or 190 dB, 

then appropriate mitigation measures 

would be implemented by SOI to avoid 

potential Level A harassment of 

cetaceans (at or above 180 dB) or 

pinnipeds (at or above 190 dB). 

Mitigation measures may include 

reducing drilling or ice management 

noises, whichever is appropriate. 

However, SOI plans to use MMOs 

onboard the drill ships and the various 

support and supply vessels to monitor 

marine mammals and their responses to 

industry activities. In addition, an 

acoustical program and an aerial survey 

program which are discussed in 

previous sections will be implemented 

to determine potential impacts of the 

drilling program on marine mammals. 

Marine Mammal Observers 

The observer(s) (MMOs and Inupiat) 

will watch for marine mammals from 

the best available vantage point on the 

operating source vessel, which is 

usually the bridge or flying bridge. The 

observer(s) will scan systematically with 

the naked eye and 7 50 reticle 

binoculars, supplemented with nightvision equipment when needed (see 

below). Personnel on the bridge will 

assist the marine mammal observer(s) in 

watching for pinnipeds and whales. The 

observer(s) will give particular attention 

to the areas around the vessel. When a 

mammal sighting is made, the following 

information about the sighting will be 

recorded: (1) Species, group size, age/ 

size/sex categories (if determinable), 

behavior when first sighted and after 

initial sighting, heading (if consistent), 

bearing and distance from seismic 

vessel, apparent reaction to seismic 

vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, 

paralleling, etc.), closest point of 

approach, and behavioral pace; (2) time, 

location, heading, speed, and activity of 

the vessel, sea state, ice cover, visibility, 

and sun glare; (3) the positions of other 

vessel(s) in the vicinity of the source 

vessel. This information will be 

recorded by the MMOs at times of whale 

(but not seal) sightings. 

The ship’s position, heading, and 

speed, the seismic state (e.g., number 

and size of operating airguns), and water 

temperature, water depth, sea state, ice 

cover, visibility, and sun glare will also 

be recorded at the start and end of each 

observation watch, every 30 minutes 

during a watch, and whenever there is 

a change in any of those variables. 

Distances to nearby marine mammals 

will be estimated with binoculars 

containing a reticle to measure the 

vertical angle of the line of sight to the 

animal relative to the horizon. 

Observers may use a laser rangefinder to 

test and improve their abilities for 

visually estimating distances to objects 

in the water. However, previous 

experience showed that this Class 1 eyesafe device was not able to measure 

distances to seals more than about 70 m 

(230 ft) away. However, it was very 

useful in improving the distance 

estimation abilities of the observers at 

distances up to about 600 m (1968 ft)- 

the maximum range at which the device 

could measure distances to highly 

reflective objects such as other vessels. 

Experience indicates that humans 

observing objects of more-or-less known 

size via a standard observation protocol, 

in this case from a standard height 

above water, quickly become able to 

estimate distances within about plus or 

minus 20 percent when given 

immediate feedback about actual 

distances during training. 

In addition to routine MMO duties, 

Inupiat observers will be encouraged to 

record comments about their 

observations into the ‘‘comment’’ field 

in the database. Copies of these records 

will be available to the Inupiat observers 

for reference if they wish to prepare a 

statement about their observations. If 

prepared, this statement would be 

included in the 90–day and final reports 

documenting the monitoring work. 

Mitigation for Subsistence Uses 

The Kulluk and Discoverer, and all 

support vessels and aircraft will operate 

in accordance with the conditions of a 

CAA currently being negotiated with the 

AEWC. SOI notes that the CAA for SOI’s 

drilling activity will incorporate all 

appropriate measures and procedures 

regarding the timing and areas of the 

operator’s planned activities (i.e., times 

and places where effects of drilling 

operations will be monitored and 

prospectively mitigated to avoid 

potential conflicts with active 

subsistence whaling and sealing); 

communications system between 

operator’s vessels and whaling and 

hunting crews (i.e., the communications 

centers will be located in strategic 

areas); provision for marine mammal 

observers/Inupiat communicators 

aboard all project vessels; conflict 

resolution procedures; and provisions 

for rendering emergency assistance to 

subsistence hunting crews. The CAA 

will also provide guidance toward 

mitigating any potential adverse effects 

on the bowhead whale subsistence 

hunts by member of the villages of 

Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. 

Reporting 

The results of the 2007 SOI vesselbased monitoring, including estimates 

of take by harassment, will be presented 

in the ‘‘90 day’’ and final technical 

report(s)’’ usually required by NMFS 

under IHAs. SOI proposes that these 

technical report(s) will include: (1) 

summaries of monitoring effort: total 

hours, total distances, and distribution 

through study period, sea state, and 

other factors affecting visibility and 

detectability of marine mammals; (2) 

analyses of the effects of various factors 

influencing detectability of marine 

mammals: sea state, number of 

observers, and fog/glare; (3) species 

composition, occurrence, and 

distribution of marine mammal 

sightings including date, water depth, 

numbers, age/size/gender categories, 

group sizes, and ice cover; (4) sighting 

rates of marine mammals versus 

operational state (and other variables 

that could affect detectability); (5) initial 

sighting distances versus operational 

state; (6) closest point of approach 

versus seismic state; (7) observed 

behaviors and types of movements 

versus operational state; (8) numbers of 

sightings/individuals seen versus 

operational state; (9) distribution around 

the drilling vessel and support vessels 

versus operational state; and (10) 

estimates of take based on (a) numbers 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
17872 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 

of marine mammals directly seen within 

the relevant zones of influence (160 dB, 

180 dB, 190 dB (if SPLs of that level are 

measured)), and (b) numbers of marine 

mammals estimated to be there based on 

sighting density during daytime hours 

with acceptable sightability conditions. 

Comprehensive Report 

Following the 2007 open water 

season, a comprehensive report 

describing the proposed acoustic, 

vessel-based, and aerial monitoring 

programs will be prepared. The 

comprehensive report will describe the 

methods, results, conclusions and 

limitations of each of the individual 

data sets in detail. The report will also 

integrate (to the extent possible) the 

studies into a broad based assessment of 

industry activities and their impacts on 

marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea 

during 2007. The report will form the 

basis for future monitoring efforts and 

will establish long term data sets to help 

evaluate changes in the Beaufort Sea 

ecosystem. The report will also 

incorporate studies being conducted in 

the Chukchi Sea and will attempt to 

provide a regional synthesis of available 

data on industry activity in offshore 

areas of northern Alaska that may 

influence marine mammal density, 

distribution and behavior. 

This comprehensive report will 

consider data from many different 

sources including two relatively 

different types of aerial surveys; several 

types of acoustic systems for data 

collection (net array, passive acoustic 

monitoring, vertical array, and other 

acoustical monitoring systems that 

might be deployed), and vessel based 

observations. Collection of comparable 

data across the wide array of programs 

will help with the synthesis of 

information. However, interpretation of 

broad patterns in data from a single year 

is inherently limited. Much of the 2007 

data will be used to assess the efficacy 

of the various data collection methods 

and to establish protocols that will 

provide a basis for integration of the 

data sets over a period of years. 

Plan of Cooperation (POC) 

SOI notes in its IHA application that 

POC meetings occurred in Barrow and 

Nuiqsut on October 16 and 17, 2006, 

and follow-up meetings are planned for 

the period May or June 2007 in these 

communities. SOI conducted a meeting 

with the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation 

in Kaktovik on November 28, 2006, and 

will continue efforts with public and 

private organizations to hold additional 

meetings as needed in Kaktovik during 

2007. Following these meetings, a POC 

report will be prepared. 

SOI also notes in its application that 

negotiations were initiated beginning 

September 2006 with the AEWC to 

create a drilling CAA between SOI, and 

the subsistence hunting communities of 

Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik for the 

2007 drilling program activities. The 

drilling CAA will cover both the 

proposed Beaufort Sea exploratory and 

geotechnical drilling programs. SOI and 

other industry participant operators, 

with AEWC, attended public meetings 

and meet with the whaling captains in 

the communities of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, 

and Barrow between January 29–

February 1, 2007. These meetings 

initiated information exchanges with 

the communities on the potential, 

proposed open water seismic and 

drilling programs for 2007. Additional 

engagements with AEWC and the 

whaling captains of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, 

and Barrow will occur between these 

meetings and onset of open water 

activities in June/July of 2007. 

If requested, post-season meetings 

will also be held to assess the 

effectiveness of the 2007 drilling CAA, 

to address how well conflicts (if any) 

were resolved; and to receive 

recommendations on any changes (if 

any) might be needed in the 

implementation of future CAAs. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

NMFS has issued a biological opinion 

regarding the effects of oil-and-gas 

activities in the Arctic Ocean on ESAlisted species and critical habitat under 

the jurisdiction of NMFS. That 

biological opinion concluded that oiland-gas exploration activities are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat. A copy of the 

Biological Opinion is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will 

also consult on the issuance of this IHA 

under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

to SOI for this activity. Consultation 

will be concluded prior to a 

determination on the issuance of an 

IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The information provided in the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) on the 

Proposed OCS Lease Sale 202 Beaufort 

Sea Planning Area by the MMS in 

August 2006 led MMS to determine that 

implementation of either the preferred 

alternative or other alternatives 

identified in the EA would not have a 

significant impact on the human 

environment. Therefore, an 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

not prepared by MMS. Preliminarily, 

NMFS has determined that the proposed 

action discussed in this document is not 

substantially different from the 2006 

action. A final decision on whether to 

adopt the MMS EA as its own and issue 

a Finding of No Significant Impact, or 

to prepare its own NEPA document will 

be made by NMFS prior to making a 

final decision on the proposed issuance 

of an IHA to SOI for this activity. 

Preliminary Conclusions 

Based on the information provided in 

SOI’s application and other referenced 

documentation, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the impact of SOI 

conducting an exploratory drilling 

program in the U.S. Beaufort Sea in 

2007 will have no more than a 

negligible impact on marine mammals. 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the short-term impact of conducting 

exploratory drilling by two drilling 

vessels and by supporting vessels, 

including ice management vessels in the 

U.S. Beaufort Sea may result, at worst, 

in a temporary modification in behavior 

by certain species of marine mammals, 

including vacating the immediate 

vicinity around the activity due to noise 

from the activity. 

While behavioral and avoidance 

reactions may be made by these species 

in response to the resultant noise, this 

behavioral change is expected to have a 

negligible impact on the animals. While 

the number of potential incidental 

harassment takes will depend on the 

distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals (which vary annually due to 

variable ice conditions and other 

factors) in the area of drilling 

operations, the number of potential 

harassment takings is estimated to be 

small (as indicated in Table 6–2 in SOI’s 

application). In addition, no take by 

death and/or serious injury is 

anticipated or would be authorized; 

there is a very low potential for an oil 

spill to result from the drilling activity, 

and the potential for temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment is low 

due to the low SPLs associated with 

drilling and ice management activities. 

Also, Level B harassment takings are 

likely to be avoided through the 

incorporation of the monitoring and 

mitigation measures mentioned in this 

document and required by the 

authorization. No rookeries, mating 

grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, 

or other areas of special significance for 

marine mammals occur within or near 

the planned area of operations during 

the season of operations. 

At this time NMFS is unable to make 

a preliminary determination that SOI’s 

proposed drilling program will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 17873 

subsistence uses of bowhead whales. As 

SOI notes in its IHA application, there 

could be an adverse impact on the 

Inupiat bowhead subsistence hunt if the 

whales were deflected seaward (further 

from shore) in the traditional hunting 

areas north of Pt. Thomson in Camden 

Bay. NMFS believes that this could 

result in whaling crews being forced to 

travel greater distances to intercept 

westward migrating whales thereby 

creating a significant safety hazard for 

whaling crews (with a potential loss of 

life), limiting chances of successfully 

striking and landing bowheads, and/or 

not landing bowheads quickly before 

decomposition and spoilage occurs. 

Prior to issuing an IHA for activities that 

take place in Arctic waters, NMFS must 

ensure that the taking by the activity 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on subsistence uses of marine 

mammals. In 50 CFR 216.103, NMFS 

has defined an ‘‘unmitigable adverse 

impact’’ to mean: 

an impact resulting from the specified 

activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the 

availability of the species to a level 

insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence 

needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to 

abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly 

displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; and 

(2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by 

other measures to increase the availability of 

marine mammals to allow subsistence needs 

to be met. 

While SOI states that the potential 

impact will be mitigated by the 

application of mitigation procedures 

described in its application and 

implemented by a CAA between the 

SOI, the AEWC and the whaling 

captains’ associations of Kaktovik, 

Nuiqsut and Barrow, the IHA 

application does not contain suggested 

measures to mitigate impacts on the fall 

bowhead subsistence hunt. NMFS 

presumes that SOI preferred to not make 

these measures public while it 

continued discussions with the AEWC 

and affected whaling captains (see Plan 

of Cooperation). Mitigation measures 

suggested publically include warm 

shutdown of drilling operations during 

the subsistence hunt and moving the 

drilling structures either further offshore 

or behind the barrier islands. Therefore, 

while SOI believes that the mitigation 

measures that will be implemented will 

minimize any adverse effects on whales 

and whalers, NMFS has not been 

provided an opportunity to make a 

similar determination. In its application, 

SOI states that it would provide results 

of its discussion of measures to reduce 

impacts to subsistence uses for bowhead 

whales this spring. NMFS encourages 

SOI to complete its negotiations quickly 

to ensure NMFS being able to make the 

determinations necessary under the 

MMPA within the time frames provided 

by the MMPA. 

Therefore, provided the mitigation 

measures contained in the CAA are 

agreed upon by the involved parties 

(which does not include NMFS) and 

provided publically during the public 

comment period, NMFS proposes to 

issue an IHA to SOI for conducting an 

offshore drilling program in the U.S. 

Beaufort Sea in 2007, provided the 

previously mentioned monitoring and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed activity would result 

in the harassment of small numbers of 

marine mammals; would have no more 

than a negligible impact on the affected 

marine mammal stocks; and, subject to 

development of mitigation measures 

during discussions with interested 

parties, would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

species or stocks for subsistence uses. 

Dated: April 4, 2007. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6753 Filed 4–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 040507D] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its Ad 

Hoc Sector Omnibus Committee 

(Committee) in April, 2007, to consider 

actions affecting New England fisheries 

in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Thursday, April 26, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Sheraton Ferncroft, 50 Ferncroft 

Road, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone: 

(978) 777–2500; fax: (978) 750–7959. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Committee will continue development 

of sector programs and operational 

guidelines addressing the specific terms 

of reference issues provided by the 

Council. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 

465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: April 5, 2007. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6715 Filed 4–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 040507C] 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) Salmon 

Bycatch Workgroup will meet in 

Anchorage, AK. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Friday, April 27, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 3 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Anchorage Hilton, 500 West 3rd 

Avenue, Lupine Room, Anchorage, AK. 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES